Global Warming Proponents Avoid Frank Inquiries with Prevarication



Every global warming proponent I have ever debated knows the glaring holes in global warming (GW) theory and knows to avoid discussing or acknowledging the glaring holes in it. To defend global warming, a theory, as if it is truth, is to perpetrate an act of “willful stupidity”, to use MLK’s phrase. This is a form of prevarication.

Need examples?  Send me your most confident liberal here for a fact-only debate, we will discuss the truth about  global warming using Socratic inquiry.

Socratic inquiry is the foundation for scientific investigation into whether a theory is true or not. It requires frankly finding and discussing the conflicts and holes in ANY theory.   All theories have conflicts in them.

Socratic inquiry is a form of cross examination, a foundation of western intelligence and justice.   It is the ONLY possible way to determine whether a theory or story is valid or not. Discussing the supporting evidence that favors a theory is not Socratically interesting, since a theory may have a million facts supporting it but only one fact is required to render the theory completely false.

By focusing on the million facts, and hiding one or more gigantic conflicts, a con-man-scientist can push off a fake theory as a truth.    But if you read the research papers, as I did, the global warming scientists DO state the conflicts in the theory.  The publically vocal liberal maliciously hides these conflicts in debate, I’ve seen it tens of times.


How to Spot A Con Man

To expose truth, the truthful person will readily focus on identifying conflicts, and will not insist on only discussing supporting facts.

To hide lies, the prevaricator only focuses on the truths of the story, the conflicts are willfully hidden, and a veil of ignorance hides the conflicts.

Rules of Debate:

Try asking a GW supporter to debate as scientists would debate any theory in a thesis setting, they all decline, or accept and quickly break the rules they agreed to.

  1. No arguments are “mine” or “yours”, arguments will be refered to by a title, this will avoid the debate becoming a battle of personalities.
  2. No foul language or swearing.
  3. All supplied arguments must be supported by quality source references.  Citations must pass frank cross examination questions, just like in a court of law, or they will be removed. Mediamatters does not qualify, nor does dailyKos, these are proven propaganda sites.  If they have a relevant post, find the sources they used for data, and cite them instead.  I’ll do the same for websites with conservative viewpoints – I’ll use source data.
  4. No ridicule.  Ridicule is a sign of lack of authenticity and contempt for truth, and will be explicitly exposed as such if employed.
  5. The defender of GW must defend as if they are in front of their PHD review board – frankly admit to the holes and how possibly misleading they could be.
  6. The trustworthiness of the school of proponents in leadership positions is a plausible argument, like attacking a witness’ credibility in court, so it will be here.

If they do accept, and can remain gracious, be sure to give the GW proponent the opportunity to disregard all these conflicting points, and restate their belief, despite……

* Despite the body of proven liars supporting it
* Despite the foundation of data-estimation science’s known flaws
* Despite the massive amounts of “created” information in the estimates, and the ease
with which this missing data can be manipulated
* Despite the known propensity of gov’t contractors to support the viewpoints of those
paying their paychecks
* Despite the vagaries of sun cycles, sun energy, cloud reflection, heat storage or loss
in the oceans, atmospheric moisture, internal heat from the earth’s core, etc.

View more work by the author in his highly acclaimed new 5 star book, “Atlas Shouts“: